全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Subjective Rationalizability in Hypergames

DOI: 10.1155/2014/263615

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

A new solution concept for hypergames called subjective rationalizability is proposed. Hypergame theory is a game theoretical framework that deals with agents who may misperceive game structures and explicitly takes into account hierarchy of perceptions, that is, an agent’s view about another agent’s view and so on. An action of an agent is called subjectively rationalizable when the agent thinks it can be a best response to the other’s choices, each of which the agent thinks each agent thinks is a best response to the other’s choices, and so on. Then it is proved that subjective rationalizability is equivalent to the standard notion of rationalizability under a condition called inside common knowledge. The result makes the new solution concept a practical tool in hypergame analyses. Theoretically, it is characterized as such a concept that provides the precise implication, that is, predicted outcomes, of a given hypergame structure. 1. Introduction Hypergame theory deals with misperceptions of agents (decision makers) in games by relaxing common knowledge often assumed in the standard game theory [1, 2]. It is the basic idea of hypergames that each agent is supposed to possess independently a subjective view about a game called her subjective game and make a decision based on it. The idea allows agents to hold different perceptions and thus enables us to capture realistic aspects of many interactive decision making situations given that misperceptions are everyday affairs in our life. In game theory, Bayesian games are often referred to as the standard model to deal with incomplete information [3]. While a hypergame can technically be reformulated as a Bayesian game under specific conditions, the reformulation requires the agents to be aware of every possibility indeed relevant to the situation [4]. Therefore hypergames are unique in that they can directly deal with unawareness of agents. Although hypergame theory has been developed in several ways, the framework the present study deals with explicitly takes into account hierarchy of perceptions, that is, an agent’s view about another agent’s view and so on [5–8]. It can describe not only situations in which an agent may perceive a game differently from the others but also situations in which she may notice that other agents may perceive the game differently, and moreover the other agents may also notice that the other agents may see different games and so on. Such a hierarchy of perceptions is formalized by using the concept of viewpoint. For example, agent ’s view about agent ’s view about agent ’s

References

[1]  P. Bennett, “Toward a theory of hypergames,” Omega, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 749–751, 1977.
[2]  P. G. Bennett and M. R. Dando, “Complex strategic analysis: a hypergame study of the fall of France,” Operational Research Society Journal, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 23–32, 1979.
[3]  J. C. Harsanyi, “Games with incomplete information played by “Bayesian” players. I. The basic model,” Management Science, vol. 14, pp. 159–182, 1967.
[4]  Y. Sasaki and K. Kijima, “Hypergames and Bayesian games: a theoretical comparison of the models of games with incomplete information,” Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 720–735, 2012.
[5]  P. G. Bennett, “Hypergames: developing a model of conflict,” Futures, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 489–507, 1980.
[6]  T. Inohara, “Interperceptional equilibrium as a generalization of Nash equilibrium in games with interperception,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics A Systems and Humans., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 625–638, 2000.
[7]  M. Wang, K. W. Hipel, and N. M. Fraser, “Modeling misperceptions in games,” Behavioral Science, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 207–223, 1988.
[8]  M. Wang, K. W. Hipel, and N. M. Fraser, “Solution concepts in hypergames,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 147–171, 1989.
[9]  H. Gintis, The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2009.
[10]  D. G. Pearce, “Rationalizable strategic behavior and the problem of perfection,” Econometrica, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1029–1050, 1984.
[11]  M. Kaneko, “Epistemic logics and their game theoretic applications: introduction,” Economic Theory, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–62, 2002.
[12]  T. Inohara, K. W. Hipel, and S. Walker, “Conflict analysis approaches for investigating attitudes and misperceptions in the War of 1812,” Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 181–201, 2007.
[13]  M. C. Shupe, W. M. Wright, K. W. Hipel, and N. M. Fraser, “Nationalization of the Suez canal: a hypergame analysist,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 477–493, 1980.
[14]  Y. Imamverdiyev, “A hypergame model for information security,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Information Security and Cryptology Conference, Ankara, Turkey, 2013.
[15]  S. Novani and K. Kijima, “Value co-creation by customer-to-customer communication: social media and face-to-face for case of airline service selection,” Journal of Service Science and Management, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 101–109, 2013.
[16]  Y. Sasaki, R. P. H?m?l?inen, and E. Saarinen, “Modeling systems of holding back as hypergames and their connections with systems intelligence,” Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2014.
[17]  B. Gharesifard and J. Cortes, “Evolution of players' misperceptions in hypergames under perfect observations,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 1627–1640, 2012.
[18]  S. Takahashi, N. Hinago, T. Inohara, and B. Nakano, “Evolutionary approach to three-person hypergame situation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC '99), vol. 4, pp. 254–259, October 1999.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133

WeChat 1538708413